Responding to his opponent's repeated taunt that he is a ''Ronald Reagan Republican,'' Rudolph W. Giuliani said after an appearance at an Orthodox Jewish private school yesterday that he could just as easily call David N. Dinkins a ''Jesse Jackson Democrat.''

So Dinkins tried to portray Giuliani as too conservative for NYC and Giuliani shot back with a parallel epithet.

But is Giuliani the right man to save [the city]? Can a hopscotch candidate, a purebred product of the tidy world of St. Joseph's, win and govern a hip-hop city?

Though he is just 49 years old, Giuliani often seems a striking throwback in New York City's anything-goes atmosphere. It's as if his cultural and psychic sensibilites froze about 1961, the year he left the tutelage of the Christian Brothers at Bishop Loughlin Memorial High School in Brooklyn. This is a man so square that he started an opera club in high school and still refers to his old high-school classmates as "other youngsters"; so corny that he proposed to his current wife at Disney World; so accepting of authority that he says the nuns and brothers who taught him were right to smack him around, because he often deserved it. He says that he simply "missed" the convulsions of the 60's, that the dilemmas of long hair or inhaling "never came up." Pictures of Abraham Lincoln and Babe Ruth hang on his office wall; David Dinkins displays photographs of Nelson Mandela and Jennifer Capriati.

Giuliani can be so awkward in public -- with hunched shoulders and a tremulous voice -- that his best friends fret constantly that New Yorkers will never know Rudy like they know Rudy. That Giuliani is the warm father who can't imagine spanking his 7-year-old son and 3-year-old daughter, the man who lives in the same Upper East Side building as his elderly mother and who on New Year's Eve dances alone with his wife to Frank Sinatra records in their apartment.

Giuliani's Wonder Bread image carries risks in a polyglot city where no single racial or ethnic group predominates, and no topic will be trickier for him than race.

In sum, he was the squarest guy in the world back then, and that was connected to race.

THE TWIST IN GIULIANI'S nostalgic pitch is that he is making it just as New York stands poised for a new political order, made inevitable by demographic shifts in a city where non-Hispanic whites are no longer a majority. In a profound sense, this son of the 50's is running against history. Even if he wins, he may be the last white man for years to lead his city.

"I've got to get this city to stop thinking in categories, to stop thinking in terms of black and white and Hispanic, and gay and heterosexual, and get us to start thinking about people," Giuliani told a group of working-class Hispanic parents in Sunset Park this spring, in an almost plaintive declaration he makes often. "I've got to get New York to stop thinking about all this symbolism."

While that may sound disingenuous to some, Giuliani is undoubtedly sincere. Far more than Dinkins, he needs to keep overt references to race out of the campaign. Dinkins's race, which helped elect him in the first place as a nonthreatening healer, remains one of his greatest assets. What Giuliani really means is that he must be free to talk about race and ethnicity on his terms, and to attack the Mayor's record, without being seen as racist.

We see that 15 years ago, the NYT portrayed him as a throwback, but the old article shows its age with the assumption that only the old fashioned think about transcending racial divisions. (Or else Barack Obama is a throwback.)

Here's today's front page article on Giuliani and race, "In a Volatile City, a Stern Line on Race and Politics," by Michael Powers:

Mr. Giuliani, aides say, found a city in the early 1990s where most of the departments affecting the lives of black New Yorkers from schools to welfare to public safety were dysfunctional. Too many citizens expected government to coddle them, and too many black leaders, said Peter Powers, one of Mr. Giuliani’s oldest friends and his first deputy mayor, were afraid to work publicly with a white Republican mayor.

Much more in the article, which details a particular time and place -- NYC in the 1990s.

How do the volatile racial politics of that time relate to the current presidential campaign?

Save for immigration, Mr. Giuliani rarely fields questions about race on the campaign trail. Republican voters, who are overwhelmingly white, have clamored to hear about 9/11 and terror....

Well, it seems that the NYT is keen on bringing race forward in the discussion of the 2008 campaign. I doubt if it helps Giuliani to sort through the painful incidents of the 1990s, though it can't hurt to repeat the amazing statistic that he reduced crime by 60 percent.

Hizzoner refused to genuflect to Al Sharpton, and had the temerity to publicly state the he hoped Lee Brown would make a better mayor of Houston than a police chief of New York. He has my vote. It's about damn time a public official had the b*lls to openly stand up to black race baiters. Up to now it doesn't seem that Giuliani's been tarred with the "racist" brush, but you'd have to expect the NY Times to try. This is war against the Republican party, after all.

I think that Giuliani actually made everyone's neighborhood safer. Many black people appreciate this in NYC, albeit grudgingly, perhaps.

His no tolerance ideas really did help. Of course there are communists who won't grant anyone credit who isn't a communist, but they are a minority of about 1%. All normal people puke whenever they speak.

For the life of me, I can't understand the support and adulation some throw at Rudy.

Here are a few of his finer attributes:

1. Announced his intention to divorce his wife, at a news conference, before even telling her.

2. Was in charge during some of the most heinous Police crimes in our nation's history.

3. Positioned headquarters for fighting terrorism in the towers, even after they'd been bombed.

4. Recommended a man to be head of Homeland Security who couldn't pass a security check to be a crossing guard.

5. And did such a great job with the New York firefighters (lack of operable radios, retrieving the bodies of the fallen, etc.)...most of them would rather kick the shit out of him than have him elected President.

You don't know jack sh*t about firefighters, pal. The union chief is part and parcel of the Democratic machine and *everyone* knows it. The IAFF rank and file will vote for Rudy just as surely as they booed Hillary. The issues that you folks bring up over and over (and over) again are dramatized and exaggerated way beyond their impact on real people. It is the "big lie" told so many times that even you propagandists are starting to believe it.

As far as Rudy's "broken windows" policies having no real effect, "ajd" is the one demonstrating true ignorance rather than our hostess.

While it is true that America saw a broad-based decline in crime through the 1990s, the decline in New York was broader and more profound than that in the rest of the country and came in the face of greater resistance from "community activists" and the Democratic elite than found anywhere else. More to the point, Rudy *led* the movement to tighter policing policies and others followed. Discounting his leadership because others also reduced crime by following his example is just senseless. Indeed, it shows that even in the face of overwhelming evidence, the lefty denizens of the blogosphere will simply make up an alternative "reality" and then pat themselves on the back for being part of the "reality-based community."

So was the air fine then or not? What's the better call? Clearing out hazardous materials to Fresh Kills to protect the living or exposing everyone to to them to preserve the 'dignity' of the fallen who were dismembered anyway?

Nice cheap shot. You can't have it both ways.

"He" did not do anything amazing. Major cities like San Diego had the same drop in crime without any of Rudy's "broken windows" policies.

Hardly an apt comparison there guy. Chicago's murder rate was increasing over the same time.

I am surprised CAIR didn't accuse Guiliani of being a racist for refusing the offer of money from the Saudi prince.

Prince al-Alweed is a major NYC landowner and in the past has given millions to NYC charities without hesitation. His timing was bad, as the public was convinced that it was a "Saudi operation". Giuliani, who had backslapped the Prince for years of other major charity giving, faceslapped him in a bid to pander to ignorant voters, which worked. al-Alweed should have just been privately told that his timing was bad and to wait, it would be a bad symbolic act while emotions were so high...That is what a gracious leader would have done.

We later learned that 9/11 was a brainchild of a Kuwaiti-Palestinian and the major players of the plot were all non-Saudis. KSM planned to use Indonesian muscle, and was directed at almost the last minute to use Saudis by bin Laden - to embarass the Monarchy. With the 15 Saudis told it was only a hijacking to free poliical prisoners. "Unwitting matryrs" Binnie called them on videotape.

While Rudy remains popular with the yahoos for "telling that raghead off", the irony is that al-Alweed is a pro-western, secular investor and while his money was rudely spurned, Rudy and Dubya have said nothing about the Saudi wahabbist extremists pouring over 140 million in money into America since 9/11 for more Wahabbi mosques, madrassahs, Muslim student organizations, and prison ministries.***************On the other hand, Giuliani has been in a long running war with the unprofessionalism of the Firefighters Union - which has also had its wars with the police (union leaders arrested for assaulting cops), and with Hillary (several members back in the "unlimited Victim-Hero entitlement" days drunkenly booed her at two post-9/11 ceremonies).

And did such a great job with the New York firefighters (lack of operable radios, retrieving the bodies of the fallen, etc.)...most of them would rather kick the shit out of him than have him elected President.

As if the Mayor is supposed to be the City's electronic communications expert...and the radios wouldn't have helped the dozens of firefighters that police testified they ordered to evacuate the WTC - and who refused to comply. The Recovery phase has been written about by several authors and one theme that emerged was Firefighters vs. Everybody else in the Pit.

They wanted to be in charge, and the realities of a complex, hazardous salvage engineering job costing 100's of millions and requiring a workforce 25-30 times larger than the firefighter's union forces - did not permit that.

They got deference on treating the bodies retrieved of their "brother Heroes" differently and more respectfully than those 'bag&tag" corpses of mere civilians, perhaps more than was merited looking back on those days.

On a platform about a block west of City Hall, Giuliani ticked off several Dinkins policies, dismissing them with the same barnyard expletive that the Mayor had used weeks earlier in response to an officer's complaint that the Mayor had failed to support the police.

When Giuliani said "bullshit," he was REPEATING DAVID DINKINS' WORD. So much for the left's big non-story.

Further, the article says that Giuliani was UNAWARE that the bridge was being blocked by other protesting cops. That was a big part of TPM's smear job--that supposedly Rudy led the police to block the bridge.

Shame on TPM. They can't even get their facts straight. I never thought I would see the day the NYT vindicated Rudy, but of course it only happened accidentally: if the reporter had known how useful it would be in the future to lie about Rudy that day, I'm sure he would have lied and omitted facts.

If you read the article, he refused to meet with or negotiate with damn near anybody of color.

First, there's more than one article, and they're several pages long. Cite to a particular page, or don't bother.

I'm not going to read 30 pages just to check whether you're telling the truth about what some journalist said. Even if you're telling the truth, all it means is that some journalist wrote it at some point in time.

In any event, I think you meant to say: they refused to meet with him. That's what one article actually says--at least, insofar as it's excerpted by Ann such as to actually be accessible.

How arrogant is it to tell people to read 30 pages just to find the point you were trying to make? Are we all supposed to jump up and do that? Or are we supposed to take you at your word? I don't believe you. Bad citations make me suspicious. There's probably nothing of the sort in any of the articles. I'll bet you made the whole thing up.

Wildmonk,Oh, sorry...I guess the firefighters who would like to choke Rudy are just a bunch of lying pieces of shit who are ALL just Democrats who support Hillary.The really don't care about their fallen comrades or the safety of the firefighters...it's ALL just politics to them.

Right.

*And...if actually you took the time to read the comments from the firefighters, you'd know that many are steadfast Republicans and could give a fuck about Hillary...they just know how Rudy ran the show when he was mayor.

And...YOU must know more than they do...since YOU were there during 9/11...right?

"He" did not do anything amazing. Major cities like San Diego had the same drop in crime without any of Rudy's "broken windows" policies."

To second what Wildmonk said, New York used to be synonymous with crime. If in 1990, 1980, 1970, etc. you went up to anybody and asked "what are the most dangerous cities in the U.S.?" New York would have always topped the list.

The idea that, today, its homicide rate could place it at 49th (below that of Omaha, Nebraska) would have been seen as utterly ridiculous:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

It's not just that its crime has merely decreased, it's that it's gone from being perennially in the same category as Washington, D.C. and Detroit to being one of safest large cities in the U.S.

His 1993 mayoral campaign slogan, often repeated, of “one city, one standard,” emphasized his view that no ethnic or racial group should expect special treatment. And he spoke with a stunning bluntness about what he saw as the failings of the city’s black leadership.

His handling of the mosque fracas set the tone. In the years to come, Mr. Giuliani would rebuff not just the histrionic Mr. Sharpton but nearly every high-ranking black official in the city, even those of moderate politics: congressmen, a state comptroller, influential ministers.

But grabbing hold of the race dial proved easier than turning it to his will.

“I never thought Rudy Giuliani was a racist,” said Fran Reiter, one of Mr. Giuliani’s deputy mayors. “But he was obsessed with the notion there were certain groups he couldn’t win over. And he wasn’t even going to try.”

Black leaders, Mr. Giuliani said in 1994, had to “learn how to discipline themselves in the way in which they speak” if they expected to chat with him. The city’s welfare-state philosophy, he said later, was racist and “enslaved” black New Yorkers.

“We in this city went through years and years of subdividing people, and that became the most important thing, the subdivision people belonged to,” Mr. Giuliani said.

Certainly he knew such words resonated with white voters who formed the backbone of his electoral coalition. What is less certain is whether a man raised and schooled in a white world understood the force with which his harshest words rained down on black New Yorkers.

New York City is 45 percent white and 27 percent black, according to 2000 Census figures."

Say what you want, but NYC was a lot better place after Giuliani than it was before.

Giuliani also showed outstanding leadership on 9-11. The pressure on him to perform was great and he did it. Contrast Giuliani to Mayor Nagin or Governor Blanco in Louisana and you will understand what leadership means. The failure of Nagin and Blanco put all the weight on the Federal Government, whom the media was quick to blame.

Giuliani spent as much time at the WTC site than anyone. So accusing him of being a chicken hawk or of disregarding the saftey there is ludicrous.

The reason why the liberals have such a problem with Giuliani is that he has a past of proven leadership. In contrast, the only leadership shown by the democrats is a desire to be defeated in Iraq.

daryl says: "How arrogant is it to tell people to read 30 pages just to find the point you were trying to make?"

I never told you to read anything.

If you'd rather make up your mind without actually "reading" something about the topic first, that's your prerogative, but most people with brains like to know something about what they're saying...before they say it.

"Black leaders, Mr. Giuliani said in 1994, had to “learn how to discipline themselves in the way in which they speak” if they expected to chat with him. The city’s welfare-state philosophy, he said later, was racist and “enslaved” black New Yorkers.

“We in this city went through years and years of subdividing people, and that became the most important thing, the subdivision people belonged to,” Mr. Giuliani said."

The words of a guy like Al Sharpton had induced riots and at least a couple deaths in the past. When judging that sort of comment, it's necessary to keep that in mind. In the 1960s South, that would translate to African American "better not be too uppity." In 1990s New York, Giuliani had to worry about a very real threat of a guy like him inciting violence to get a political advantage.

Whether people were offended by a statement like that from Giuliani or not, he was absolutely right, the mayor of New York could not expect to clean up the city and keep order while worrying about that sort of thing happening in the future.

Between what we already know about this creep...and what will eventually crawl out of his closet...he's toast.

By 1999, Giuliani's approval rating had dropped to 40 percent, and a year later, his marriage had become a major bone of contention ith the citizens of New York.

Why?

Well, this didn't help:

The New York City Fire Department issued a report on communication devices after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing showed that the department's hand-held radio devices were wholly inadequate.

The report, which landed on Mayor Giuliani's desk his first day in office, explained that department radios didn't work between floors in high-rises or in deep subway tunnels.

The city eventually bought several thousand new Motorolas in 1999, according to the New York Times. Chaos soon ensued, says Steadman, after firefighters complained that there were strong echoes and voice delays on the new radios. But as the 9/11 Commission report shows, when the FDNY responded to the 9/11 attacks, it was using the analog radios that "performed poorly" during the 1993 bombings.

As a result, more than 200 firefighters in the north tower did not receive an evacuation call on their radios.

"Luckyoldson said... Sloanasaurus said..."Say what you want, but NYC was a lot better place after Giuliani than it was before."

Except for 9/11...right?"

Uh, Lucky, yeah, even with 9/11 it's a lot better and I don't know how anybody whose even vaguely familiar with Pre-Giuliani New York could say that. The idea that one terrorist attack cancels out the level of crime that New York used to have, the mafia infiltration that was brought down in large part because of him, and the booming economy New York has now is just plain retarded.

It's even more retarded when you take into account the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 that took place prior to him coming to office.

Stephen,Personally, from my frequent visits to the East Coast, and New York in general, I don't think New York is better today than before 9/11. I base it on conversations I have with friends and business associates who were there before and after the attack.

Maybe if you were to actually talk to people who actually live there...who actually know something.

"By 1999, Giuliani's approval rating had dropped to 40 percent, and a year later, his marriage had become a major bone of contention ith the citizens of New York."

Lucky, he had a 40% unapproval rating because:

1. He was a Republican mayor in a city with 5 to 1 Democrat voter registration.

2. People like you complaining about his methods while ignoring their success in actually cleaning up the city.

3. The scandal in his marriage.

The number of people in New York who either knew or cared about radio devices in the Twin Towers could have been counted on my right hand. Your argument that he had a low approval rating because of that is, again, ridiculous.

And please cite for me your evidence that 200 firefighters died because of those radio devices.

Wilmonk wrote: The union chief is part and parcel of the Democratic machine and *everyone* knows it. The IAFF rank and file will vote for Rudy just as surely as they booed Hillary. The issues that you folks bring up over and over (and over) again are dramatized and exaggerated way beyond their impact on real people. It is the "big lie" told so many times that even you propagandists are starting to believe it.

This sounds really familiar, I wonder why.

>>The Giuliani campaign posted a quote from retired Fire Department of New York firefighter Lee Ielpi on its Web site Wednesday.

"It’s unfortunate but not surprising that the IAFF union bosses have once again taken the low road in a move clearly out of step with their membership. In 2008, I expect these same union bosses to endorse Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John Edwards, so today’s comments are just a first step in that process. Fortunately, rank and file firefighters know the difference between politics and leadership," Ielpi said.<<

http://www.wnbc.com/politics/13664440/detail.html

Best to alter your rhetoric lifted from Guliani campaign talking points before you accuse others of spewing propaganda, don't you think?

Wildmonk wrote: While it is true that America saw a broad-based decline in crime through the 1990s, the decline in New York was broader and more profound than that in the rest of the country and came in the face of greater resistance from "community activists" and the Democratic elite than found anywhere else.

What are you basing this statement upon? Can you supply any facts to do so? A link would be useful. Or is this something you read somewhere? Newsmax perhaps?

More to the point, Rudy *led* the movement to tighter policing policies and others followed.

Again, a link to support this statement would be nice. It's pretty broad based. Especially considering that FBI stats support flucuations in crime nationwide the past two decades, and not all communities that saw a downturn in crime implemented the policing strategies that NYC did. Also, regarding NYC crimes, the city was into a well publicized three year slide in crime by the time Rudy took office.

Rudy likes to state over and over that the fall in crime was "his baby", and he openly takes credit for implementing Compstat. (A program that moved operational decisions to the precinct level, increasing community awareness and combined that with crime maps.) But, the truth is, Compstat was brought to NYC by William Bratton. The program is rooted in the "broken windows" theories first considered by criminologists James Q. Wilson and George Kelling.

"Wildmonk wrote: While it is true that America saw a broad-based decline in crime through the 1990s, the decline in New York was broader and more profound than that in the rest of the country and came in the face of greater resistance from "community activists" and the Democratic elite than found anywhere else.

What are you basing this statement upon? Can you supply any facts to do so"

"But, the truth is, Compstat was brought to NYC by William Bratton. The program is rooted in the "broken windows" theories first considered by criminologists James Q. Wilson and George Kelling."

I don't remember Giuliani ever claiming he actually invented these things. What he did take credit for was implementing them in New York, which is entirely accurate. And if you're saying this happened before his time in office and that he unfairly took credit for it, it ought to at least be pointed out William Bratton was Giuliani's appointment. Before Giuliani, Bratton was working for the Boston police, not NY.

Stephen said..."I find that ad hominem attacks are always useful when someone can't find any stats to support them."

I provided plenty of verifiable information:

1. People never really "loved" Rudy, usually carrying an approval rating of about 50%...even as a Republican. (By 1999, Giuliani's approval rating had dropped to 40 percent, and a year later, his marriage had become a major bone of contention ith the citizens of New York.)

2. The New York City Fire Department issued a report on communication devices after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing showed that the department's hand-held radio devices were wholly inadequate.

3. The report, which landed on Mayor Giuliani's desk his first day in office, explained that department radios didn't work between floors in high-rises or in deep subway tunnels.

4. The city eventually bought several thousand new Motorolas in 1999, according to the New York Times. Chaos soon ensued, says Steadman, after firefighters complained that there were strong echoes and voice delays on the new radios. But as the 9/11 Commission report shows, when the FDNY responded to the 9/11 attacks, it was using the analog radios that "performed poorly" during the 1993 bombings.

5. As a result, more than 200 firefighters in the north tower did not receive an evacuation call on their radios.

6. Announced his intention to divorce his wife, at a news conference, before even telling her.

7. Was in charge during some of the most heinous Police crimes in our nation's history.

8. Positioned headquarters for fighting terrorism in the towers, even after they'd been bombed.

9. Recommended a man to be head of Homeland Security who couldn't pass a security check to be a crossing guard.

The myth conjured up by Giuliani critics, like the NYT, to overcome what they see as the myth of the crime busting Knight-on an, um, white-horse who made NYC “Safe City” & "Fiscally Not a Basket-Case City" as well as “Fun City” goes something like this:

“Well, OK he reduced crime but so did every other city & by 9/10/01 & anyway he didn’t really reduce spending in the end; moreover, he’d worn out his welcome with his crazy anti-woman personal life, his all-around nastiness especially toward Blacks & minorities, & by not acting the way that his disgraced predecessors & we at the NYT would’ve following a number of predictable racially-polarizing incidents. Then on 9/11/01 a new myth arose & he was magically & undeservedly resurrected into a hero because of his appearing to be on top of things whereas his neglect of things had actually made 9/11 worse &, hey, it was all showmanship on & after 9/11. Another celebrity politician has been born & we just won’t have this so long as that celebrity is Republican & one who does not genuflect toward Liberal Pieties & important Liberal multi-cultural symbols.”

Such singleness of purpose occurs with depressing regularity in the MSM. (See, I don’t need to use a low word such as “bulls**t” to make my point.) There seems to be a fine line between being a glib, clever UWS Liberal writing for the MSM & a blithering idiot, As Orwell might have it (paraphrase)

One would have to be incredibly intelligent to have come up with a portrait so incredibly stupid.

So, it’s difficult to address this portrait in a short piece.

First I will resist the temptation to turn Rudy into The Miracle Worker if Liberals resist the same for Hillary. And I will acknowledge that there are many guys who deserve credit for NYC’s turnaround, that Koch & even Dinkins had started some of the policies some give Rudy full credit for, that many of the problems, e.g., schools, still exist, that one bad Wall Street collapse….

So, I make no claims of political purity for Rudy, I’m just placing him in time & space in the History of NYC. In short, as someone has noted (Cannoto, Siegel, Buckley?) ever since LaGuardia, before Rudy, every Mayor left office diminished in stature along with the City. Pessimism was the prevailing meme even among Liberals. Big Cities were “ungovernable” & NYC was absolutely ungovernable. Rudy did far more than appear & mouth Liberal pieties about poverty & lack of Federal government funds for one more poverty-ending project, suck lack caused by mostly Republican Presidents. Rudy was, alas, uneven in reducing City spending but he cut the deficit & the payroll & fought (at least in the early years) with the brain-dead government unions, accomplishments not to be minimized in NYC.

And his most important success was in reducing crime, including Black-on-Black crime & restoring public order. When Dinkins was Mayor, I dressed down to visit my Ma in Inwood (North Manhattan), whereas in, um, Giuliani Time I could walk from Inwood thru Harlem on a Saturday afternoon with another white guy without fear. And even in Bloomberg time my wife & I can take the poor persons bus from the Cloisters through Harlem to Midtown without incident.

And, Ajd:

All this was not just dumb luck. (BTW, do you believe that it was also dumb luck when Clinton presided over the ‘90s economic boom?) Do you really believe that crime stats would’ve had, under Rudy’s predecessor or another of the ‘90s candidates, the similar decline noted by Prof A?

And luckyoldson:

In the 1980s I heard two memes: don’t be beastly to the Soviets, it may lead to nukes, & don’t fail to placate Black “leaders”, it may lead to riots. So after Rudy refused to legitimize the outrageous claims of the people the NYT cites as leaders, there was that big reduction in crime & a revitalized Harlem I could walk thru. Go figure.

And to several commenters:

NYC’s obviously successful response to 9/11 reflected Rudy’s years of planning for terrorism rather than sitting around reflecting on root causes, which reflections somehow always amount to “blame it on poverty”. Yes, as the anti-Rudy NYC firefighter commercial claims, the nerve center was put in 7 WTC which fell in the 9/11 strike (who knew?). But all the Best & the Brightest were against such nerve center in the first place. (NYT:” NYC’s funniest bunker since Archie”.) But, more important, the general planning worked in spite of this building collapse because there were policies in place which were not there in previous Administrations. (Dinkins did nothing about radios after the first WTC attack in 1993, a fact ignored in the ad.) Nor, IMHO, would such policies have been in the administrations of any of the diminished-in-waiting.

In short, the late ‘90s were the best of times whereas before that it was the worst of times for the Big Apple. And Rudy changed the defeatist culture of NYC which legacy has at least not diminished so far. And Rudy was a strong guy from a working-class background who understands the value of treating immigrants & Blacks with dignity, which concept does not include racial showmanship.

Am I working for the Giuliani campaign? No. Does the above sound like a paean for Rudy? Yes. So, let me say that, IMHO, Rudy appears to be the least socially conservative among Republican candidates. Except for one Big Thing, one Big Important Thing: Rudy is a symbol of hawkish national strength, including civility, safety, & order, yes, under the Rule of Law. (Just as Hillary, Edwards, Obama, & Gore are, rightfully, symbols of Left Things.)

And economically, while Rudy may not be confused with Milton Friedman, he certainly practiced an economics which looks to a “hand up rather than a hand out”.

And economic conservatives such as moi realize that, while Rudy was not a pure budget hawk, another one of these diminished-in waiting candidates would have simply “blown” the money arising out of NYC ‘90s economic boom. For us, then, as far as economic conservatism is concerned, the perfect is the enemy of the good.

Would he be my first choice for President? Well, the best guy may not be running & the choice is never between Solon The Lawgiver & Hammurabi.

And such racially-motivated attacks & videos of him saying "bulls**t" won't diminish Rudy.

I was there, for chrissakes! I've lived in New York almost my whole life, and if anybody tells me, like that asshole AJD, that crime just magically went away on its own, I would tell them to get their head out of their (or whoever else's) ass. Yeah, it went away just like f***ing San Diego. Give me a break!

I was mugged and my apartment was broken into twice, the first time in 1979. And I live on a relatively safe street in the Village. The subway was getting scary, and I was taking too many cab rides for my budget. When I was younger, I used to walk everywhere, but I've needed more transportation since I'm getting old, so I wound up bumping along in busses. They take forever, but at least you're where people can see you. By the time Rudy was elected, I was thinking seriously about moving out of New York. Where I would go is another story.

It's a fact, people, that the City became a lot better place to live mainly because of what Giuliani did. It wasn't pretty. He made a lot of enemies. I could go on for pages about all that crap. I'm sure you'll hear all about every ugly detail. But he made me, someone who always voted Democratic (I mean, who would vote for a, pardon the expression, Republican? Ugh.) at least pay some attention to somebody who had some different ideas and ways of doing things that actually seemed to work. Walk around the City. It hasn't been this good, except for all the construction, since the early 60's. And even then it was dirtier in some ways than it is now.

And the way he handled 9/11 was fantastic. I saw the second Tower go down. I was down there a couple of weeks later, doing what I could (not much), and I remember thinking that Rudy barely got out with his ass; he was great as a communicator and organizer; he seemed to do everything right, and I thanked God he was there. But there was already enough grumbling, and I thought that if he ever tried to run for Senate or, God forbid, President, they'd find something he screwed up and pump it into a big, stinking, gas-filled scandal.

I voted for him for mayor once. I'll tell you, though, I won't vote for him for President. He was a great mayor. Thank you very much, Rudy! I think we all learned some lessons.

But do I want him as president? No way. His yelling "Bullshit!" at something Dinkins said speaks very well of him. That is not "unhinged." Unhinged is all the crap with his marriage and personal life, and what that says about his "temperament." All I will say is that it was embarrassing. The basic problem with Rudy is that he is a needy guy. In these times, I want someone who is as tough and smart as Rudy, but without his personal baggage.

Who is that? Sen. Clinton, obviously. I really like her. She's been a much better Senator than I expected. She's tough; she's experienced; she's smart; and she's actually friendly and nice in person. Anyway, I'll quit now, because this is not supposed to be about Hillary, but whether Giuliani is a racist, or whatever bullshit they're making up about him today.

I also want to say thank you, from Inwood. I just noticed your comment before I put this up. I'm pretty sure I don't agree with you politically about a lot of things, but you're absolutely right about what Rudy did.

I do not think Giuliani is temperamentally suited to being the President of the US. And of course no one would think otherwise were it not for his role (leadership or self-promotion, depending on your viewpoint) on 9/11 and following. However, I also think a lot of these attacks on Giuliani are silly.

Giuliani did hire Bratton, and more to the point Giuliani also publicly backed Bratton's policies, which were innovative and controversial, and probably quite effective.

That said, that Giuliani may have squeezed out Bratton because Bratton was getting too much of the credit (something I have read and which seems plausible, but which I am willing to be convinced otherwise on), would also reflect badly on Giuliani's character.

I find that ad hominem attacks are always useful when someone can't find any stats to support them."

I provided plenty of verifiable information:

----

1. ...which doesn't change the fact you have to resort to:

Do you EVER actually READ anything...or do you just start typing?

to make your argument

2. While these may be verifiable or rebuttable by somebody else, most of these haven't been verified by you. You've made sweeping claims here("**All** firefighters in New York hate Rudy") while providing very little to support that.

No one has demonstrated who was at fault for the NYC radios situation, or even if there was any fault. Finding management fault even at the level of the city's manager of communications technology would depend on evidence from high rises in other cities using their 2001 radios. I have seen none.

Finding fault on the mayor's role would require an indication that he refused to implement a specific recommendation from said manager, and that that recommendation was reasonable and in fact likely to have led to better communications on 9/11 and saved lives.

But the text as quoted here (by Luckyoldson) shows that NYC did buy the new digital radios requested by the FDNY, but that the new radios worked even worse than the old digital ones, so the men continued to carry the old ones.

This does not surprise me. I personally would expect that digital radios of that time (if not now, even) would be less reliable than analog radios in situations of largely blocked signals.

Lucky - But, in this case, I think I'll rely more on the firefighters who were actually there, fighting the fight, than some weasel who thinks he knows something about an event he had no part in.

Were YOU there? Did YOU help out?

Typical sneaky sh*t from Luckyoldson.

His tried and true method?

1. He tries latching on to someone's sentiments in a group like firefighters or US combat soldiers that America generally admires...and behind their skirts, claims his position is on the high ground and unassailable because a "distinguished black person, general, or firefighter union boss agrees".

2. Then Lucky puts words in their mouths as his sockpuppets and tries to purport that Lucky's views are their views.

3. When it is pointed out that Lucky's views are not valid on their own or by his sockpuppet because he tries to "speak through" a minority of troops or firefighters that dislike Giuliani or Bush? Good 'ol Lucky instantly moves to the Chickenhawk attack to de-legitimize his foe.

4, "How do YOU know that! Where you there when heroes died in the WTC!!!! I have absolute moral authority, through MY firefighters who I chose because they are anti-Giuliani, to diss Rudy. But you weren't there, chickenhawk, so don't you DARE say other firefighters disagree with my heroes. You lack moral authority! And....Don't you DARE say troops support Bush unless you actually fought and suffered along the ones I am selectively using as my sock puppets."

5. Other posters again remind Lucky he is full of shit and again hiding behind others.

6. Lucky comes out with fresh chickenhawk!!!! iterations that only seem applicable to his opponents, not to the non-soldier, non-firefighter, not-anything - Luckyoldson..

7. Other posters see Lucky doing the same old, same old, and move on..

**************For the black leaders vs. Giuliani, the black leaders ideas in the 90s were tried out in other cities - more midnight basketball on school nights, more welfare, more school breakfast programs, more black gang outreach - and their black majority cities are still festering high crime ratholes. The "self-annointed" black spokesmen (mostly race-baiters) and "distinguished NAACP leaders" - a viciously partisan Democratic Party tool of old Party machine patronage & race spoils hacks - are now much more marginalized. Sharpton is now a joke outside his instant MSM access, Jackson thought of as a scam artist, the NACCP is bankrupt and close to dissolution....Blacks favor a black candidate with no American slave ancestors with a white mother who was raised by a white family...or the wife of "America's 1st Bubba-Black President".

Pick one out that you think is incorrect and I'll provide verification:

1. Announced his intention to divorce his wife, at a news conference, before even telling her.

2. Was in charge during some of the most heinous Police crimes in our nation's history.

3. Positioned headquarters for fighting terrorism in the towers, even after they'd been bombed.

4. Recommended a man to be head of Homeland Security who couldn't pass a security check to be a crossing guard.

5. And did such a great job with the New York firefighters (lack of operable radios, retrieving the bodies of the fallen, etc.)...most of them would rather kick the shit out of him than have him elected President.

"And did such a great job with the New York firefighters (lack of operable radios, retrieving the bodies of the fallen, etc.)...most of them would rather kick the shit out of him than have him elected President."

After giving your own credentials for why you have a right to post, seeing as you implied that only those who were in NY fighting the fight had such a right, then I would like to see you provide proof of this-- a majority of rank and file NY firemen want to kick the shit out of Giuliani.

But first meet the standards you wanted to impose on other commenters. Then prove that assertion-- every singe detail of it.

"Was in charge during some of the most heinous Police crimes in our nation's history."

I disagree with your characterization of the police under Giuliani. Such a judgment necessarily must depend on comparing Giuliani or his police force to that of other mayors, not comparing him or his police to some platonic ideal, let alone substituting the judgments of Al Sharpton or New York-based media.

Even leaving aside that homicides fell by 70% over the Giuliani Administration — a fact possibly not attributable to Giuliani or even the NYC Police — shootings by the New York Police were also cut by more than half from the rate under Dinkins, to one of the lowest urban rates in the country, with shootings of blacks similarly down.

Shootings are of course the most serious of assaults, and the only ones with consistent statistics kept. Granted it does appear that police broomstick sodomies went from zero under Dinkins to one under Giuliani, but that’s a pretty small sample size.

If Giuliani is guilty of malfeasance because of police violence, then all mayors are so guilty.

Lucky, that's an incredibly limited list out of all the stuff you've posted on this thread.

If you want something from me:

"2. Was in charge during some of the most heinous Police crimes in our nation's history."

Out of all the mass lynchings, all the mafia infiltration, all the acts that occurred with police support and sympathy in the South after the civil war, to say Giuliani's tenure as mayor involved some of the most heinous police crimes in American history is just ignorant of American history.

"4. Recommended a man to be head of Homeland Security who couldn't pass a security check to be a crossing guard."

While Kerik wound up having done bad stuff (and this will come back to haunt Giuliani)--since he was able to pass a security check to be a police officer for years, I'm willing to bet he would have been able to pass a check to be a security guard.

My apologies, though, you're right. You did not say all firefighters hate Giuliani. What you said was:

"And did such a great job with the New York firefighters (lack of operable radios, retrieving the bodies of the fallen, etc.)...most of them would rather kick the shit out of him than have him elected President."

Please provide me evidence most New York firefighters would like to beat up Giuliani in a fight and kick the shit out of him.

The guy was able to work as a police officer, so I'm pretty sure he could have gotten past a check to be a security guard. This was your statement not mine, so if you find it ridiculous don't blame me.

Hooray! Luckyoldson and I agree on something! I, someone who wants Giuliani to win the GOP nomination, and who defends Obama on Althouse threads because I think he would be a good President too, and who might vote for Hillary depending on if she gets the nomination and who the GOP nominates, am closer to the mindset of a GOP primary voter than someone way out in left field like luckyoldson.

It's amazing how much the liberal ultra-lefttoad Democratic organs like the NYT & its pilot fish entourage are afraid of Rudy, afraid that he'll clean up the USA and its criminal networks of trial lawyers, crooked unions, and other white collar miscreants who flood the Dems with cash while the academicide wing floods the MSM with surrender-now agitprop.

I got the idea for the name about five years ago, when a friend took a look at my new haircut and said, "My God, Rebecca (not my real name either, but closer), you're looking like Bea Arthur!"I said, "I don't know about her hair. I just wished I had her bank account!"Some of my friends picked up the idea, and pretty soon we had all these running Golden Girls jokes. You had to have been there.

I will say that the "real" Bea Arthur is very talented, and deserves every thing she's gotten. She's worked very hard, and has had a amazingly long career. Unbelievable, really.

Me, I'm just a left-over Beatnik who had enough weird abilities to survive.

My goal right now is to survive long enough to see our first woman President.

Lucky, if you're over 15 years old I'd be stunned and if you're over 25 I genuinely pity you.

Really, what's the point of posting if it's just going to consist of stuff that's as retarded as this?

I mean, maybe you're insecure and feel a need for validation, but it's not my fault if you have a small dick--you should still be able to find better uses of your time than posting "I know you are, but what am I" responses late at night on an blog's comment thread.

Lucky said You want to vote for Rudy...great.But he won't be the Republican nominee.

I think it is likely that Rudy will be the nominee.

Any social conservative knows that the Supreme Court is really all that matters on a federal level. Giuliani has promised to appoint strict constructionists to the Court. Therefore, social conservatives will support Giuliani because he is more likely to be elected then a traditional social conservative.

Anyone with a passing familiarity with Rudy Giuliani's career knows that race relations were a recurring issue, and not just because the NYT says it was.

Sure, plenty of other media outlets and professional "civil rights" leaders said the same thing. But since I don't care what any of them think, I don't see any reason to care.

So blacks hate Giuliani? This distinguishes him from every other Republican President of the last 40 years... how? Really, now, what reason is there for any Republican politician to care about the votes of a group of people who will, with almost no exceptions, flatly refuse to vote for him unless he becomes a Democrat?